PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OEA/Ser.GORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES CP/CAJP-1790/01 rev. 1

8 May 2001COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS Original: Spanish

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS ON THEOBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES REGARDING

THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

(Approved at its meeting of May 8, 2001)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS ON THE OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES REGARDING

THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

1. Introduction

At its regular meeting of February 28, 2001, the Permanent Council agreed that, to comply with the provision in Article 91.f of the Charter that it consider the annual reports of the organs, agencies, and entities of the inter-American system, it would proceed to instruct the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs to review the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

At its meeting of March 9, 2001, the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs welcomed Judge Antonio Cançado Trindade, President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which sits in San José, Costa Rica. He was accompanied by the Vice President of the Court, Judge Máximo Pacheco Gómez and by Judges Hernán Salgado Pesantes, Alirio Abreu Burelli, Sergio García Ramírez and Carlos Vicente Roux Rengifo, as well as the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Court, Mr. Manuel Ventura Robles and Mr. Renzo Pomi. Dr. Cançado Trindade gave a description of the Court’s activities in 2000, which is attached as an integral part of this report. The Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs then proceeded to examine both the form and content of document CP/doc.3415/01 and agreed to make pertinent observations and recommendations. It also noted that, in both form and content, the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights conforms to the provisions of resolution AG/RES. 331 (VIII-O/78), adopted by the General Assembly at its eighth regular session, and it was pleased to note that the Report was submitted prior to the deadline established in Article 34.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Permanent Council.

2. Presentation of the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by the President of the Court

Dr. Antonio Cançado Trindade, President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights presented the Annual Report of the Court on its activities in 2000. His presentation is reproduced in Annex 1 to this Report.

First, he pointed out that in the course of 2000, three new disputes were submitted for consideration by the Inter-American Court together with two petitions for provisional protective measures. In addition, three resolutions on provisional protective measures were adopted. The President said that the Court currently had before it 30 disputes at different stages of proceedings, as well as 15 provisional protective measures. He reaffirmed the Court’s commitment to dealing with this volume of work as quickly as possible, without prejudice to legal security, provided that its budget is not cut and that the increases requested for 2002 are granted.

Dr. Cançado Trindade also informed the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs that in the course of the year 2000, Barbados had recognized the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to hear disputes and that Peru had recently normalized its relations with the Court, which represented the return of the Peruvian state to its better legal tradition and thinking. Those two

cases, together with the recent recognitions of the Court’s jurisdiction by the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, and Brazil, illustrated the increasing strength of the system.

He also underscored the positive contribution to the inter-American system for the protection of human rights of various states that had fully or partially agreed to the demands of the Court, accepting the fact that violations had occurred and their international liability. At the same time he called on those states that had not yet done so, to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights and recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court in disputes, to enable our human rights protection system to be enriched with universality of composition, in the regional sphere of its operation. He said that until all OAS member states had ratified the American Convention, fully accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, and incorporated the substantive standards of the American Convention into their domestic law, very little progress would be made in genuinely strengthening the inter-American protection system.

The President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also reported that on March 8, 2001, the Court and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had held a plenary meeting, with fruitful discussions, above all on the future implementation of the new Rules of Procedure adopted by both of them and on the strengthening of the supervision of states’ compliance with rulings of the Court and recommendations of the Commission. He said that the presidents of the two bodies had sent a letter to the OAS Secretary General informing him of the above and requesting additional resources from the OAS to enable both bodies to carry out their work diligently (until those resources reached at least 10 percent of the Organization’s regular budget). That letter is attached to this report (see Appendix II).

With respect to the adoption, through a resolution dated November 24, 2000, of the new Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that will enter into force on June 1, 2000, the President of the Court said it aimed to tailor the rules governing its procedures to the needs for more efficient protection of the human rights enshrined in the American Convention and responded to a mandate conferred by the General Assembly held in Windsor, Canada, in June 2000. Dr. Cançado Trindade maintained that most significant change had consisted of allowing direct participation by alleged victims, their family members, or their representatives, in all phases of the proceedings before the Court. He said that, thanks to that modification, it was clear that the true parties to a dispute before the Court are those bringing the case and the State against which it is brought, and only in a procedural sense the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. This meant that there could be three different positions before the Court: that of the alleged victim, that of the Commission (as an auxiliary organ of the Court), and that of the respondent State. In addition, he said that a number of provisions had been introduced with respect, inter alia, to preliminary exceptions, replies to petitions, and reparation, with a view to streamlining proceedings before the Court.

Dr. Cançado Trindade reported that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had held two more meetings of experts in February 2000 at its seat in San José, Costa Rica to identify criteria on the steps that must be taken to strengthen the inter-American human rights protection system. He informed the Commission that the first volume of proceeding of the seminar on “The Inter-American Human Rights Protection System on the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century” held in Costa Rica in November 1999 had been published. Copes were distributed at the meeting.

- 3 -

Separately, the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights referred to the presentation of the Annual Report of the Court to the General Assembly held in Windsor, Canada, in June 2000. On that occasion, Judges Antonio Cançado Trindade (Brazil), Oliver Jackman (Barbados), and Alirio Abreu Burelli (Venezuela), were reelected for a six-year term.

With regard to budgetary matters, Dr. Cançado Trindade said that although the Court’s budget had been increased for 2001, it was still not enough to cover the growing needs of the Court, especially now that the amendments to its Rules of Procedure allowed full participation ( locus standi in judicio) of the alleged victims, which would mean that they too would appear before the Court. He said that, given the number of cases pending before the Court, which increased every year, priority should be given to financing a semi-permanent Court, and eventually a permanent Court. Dr. Cançado Trindade then distributed a budget estimate for such a Court, which is attached to this report (see Appendix III). He also pointed out that, although the budget of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is financed by the OAS, it also receives a US$100,000 annual grant from the Government of Costa Rica. He also mentioned the audit being carried out of the Court’s financial statements, the grants from the Governments of Brazil and Mexico, and the international cooperation agreements between the Court and institutions dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights, as well as implementation of agreements signed in previous years.

Finally, the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights spoke about the visits of the presidents of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, and the Dominican Republic to the seat of the Court. He said their visits confirmed a trend toward closer respectful relations and constructive dialogue between the states and the organs responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. He also reported on talks with the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Dr. Cançado Trindade concluded by reiterating his firm support for the work of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Permanent Council of the OAS regarding dialogue on the inter-American system of promotion and protection of human rights. He said he would be happy to attend a future meeting of the Committee on that topic.

2. Observations and Recommendations of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs

The Chair of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs thanked the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judge Antonio Cançado Trindade, for his detailed presentation and the Inter-American Court for its excellent work in the field of protection of human rights. The following delegations then put forward observations and recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on its activities during 2000: Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, United States and Venezuela.

- 4 -

a. Recognition of the Contentious Jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Several delegations underscored the importance of the recent recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Brazil, and Barbados, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention. They also said they welcomed the fact that on January 31, 2001, the Government of Peru deposited with the General Secretariat of the OAS an instrument normalizing its relations with the Court.

They also stressed the need for states to comply with the judgments of the Court and to implement the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights.

Several delegations pointed to the transparency with which the Court goes about its work and said that such transparency was fundamental for inducing states that are not parties to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights and in persuading those who are parties to it to accept the contentious jurisdiction of the Court in the near future.

b. Strengthening of the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights

With regard to the strengthening of the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights, several delegations referred to the role of the political organs as guarantors of the Convention and recalled Article 65 which stipulates that the Court shall submit for special consideration by the General Assembly the cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments.

Various delegations highlighted the important role of the Court in the dialogue surrounding the strengthening of the inter-American system of promotion and protection of human rights and expressed interest in pursuing this progressive dialogue with the Court in the framework of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs. They said they would be interested in exploring this topic in greater depth in any meetings planned for that purpose.

c. Universal acceptance of the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights

Most delegations underlined the importance of achieving adoption of the system by all member states and expressed support for the appeal made by the President of the Court to states that have not yet done so to sign, ratify, or accede to the Convention and recognize the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.

Other delegations reiterated their government’s commitment to the inter-American system for the protection and promotion of human rights, even though they had not yet been able to ratify or accede to the Convention or other inter-American legal instruments on human rights or to recognize the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. In that context, one delegation reported on the steps his country was taking to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights.

- 5 -

d. Visits by Latin American presidents to the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

The delegations mentioned the visits by various presidents of Latin American countries to the seat of the Court in San José and construed them to be a clear indication of the commitment of member states as guarantors of the system to the strengthening of the inter-American system of human rights and to the work of the Court, in particular.

e. Adoption of the new rules of procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Several delegations congratulated the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the transparency with which it carried out the amendments to its Rules of Procedure and on the outcome. They pointed to the innovations introduced, which in their view established transparent criteria for the processing of cases before the Court. Some delegations underscored the importance of introducing in the Rules of Procedure the direct participation of the alleged victims, their relatives, or representatives in all stages of the proceedings before the Court and said they considered that this added extra fairness to the proceedings. Other amendments mentioned included the deadline for responding to petitions, which has been cut from four months to two, thereby permitting, in the opinion of some delegations, swifter processing of cases to the benefit of the parties involved. Some other delegations, on the other hand, considered that the reduction in the time allowed curtailed the state’s ability to conduct the inter-institutional inquiries that a case might merit, or to obtain the data required, and to send the necessary communications. Delegations also pointed out the importance of the reforms regarding evidentiary matters, especially the amendment whereby evidence presented to the Commission must be incorporated into the Court’s case file, provided that it was admitted in proceedings in which both parties in an action were present and unless the Court deems it necessary to duplicate the evidence. Some delegations also expressed doubts regarding the regulatory provisions applicable to cases begun while the previous Rules of Procedure were still in force and the need for such cases to continue being governed by those Rules of Procedure.

Several delegations stated that the relations between the changes made to the Rules of Procedure by the Court and those made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights should be taken into account in order to form a clear idea as to the functions of each organ and to avoid overlaps, while respecting in any case the autonomy of each. In general, delegations said it would be necessary to observe the results of applying the Court’s new Rules of Procedure over a period of time.

f. Relations with other organizations

Several delegations expressed their appreciation and congratulated the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on maintaining ongoing relations between the Court and other human rights institutions, especially the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. As regards the Commission, the delegations asked Judge Cançado Trindade to report in greater detail on the latest meeting between the two institutions, especially with respect to the views of the two organs regarding the amendments to their respective Rules of Procedure. It was suggested that a meeting be held of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs in which both the President of the Court and the President of the Commission would take part.

- 6 -

g. Budget of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Several delegations reiterated their commitment to the Court and to the inter-American human rights system, stating that they were fully in favor of a gradual increase in the budgetary resources allocated to that organ, until they attained 10 percent of the total regular budget of the Organization for the principal organs of the system.

In this context, several delegations pointed out that although it was important to have voluntary grants from member states of the Organization and from permanent observers, the Court could not depend only on those kinds of contribution and needed to be able to rely on sufficient resources from the Regular Fund. They said this should be taken into account when it came to establishing the Organization’s priorities during analysis of the budget in the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs, especially in light of the increase in the number of cases before the Court.

4. Conclusions and Draft Resolution

The Chair of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs thanked the following for their presence: Judge Antonio Cançado Trindade, President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; the Vice President of the Court, Judge Máximo Pacheco Gómez; Judges Hernán Salgado Pesantes, Alirio Abreu Burelli, Sergio García Ramírez, and Carlos Vicente Roux Rengifo; and the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Court, Mr. Manuel Ventura Robles and Mr. Renzo Pomi.

The Chair of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs proposed that note should be taken of the Report presented by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and of the observations made by the delegations. She congratulated those states that have recently recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court and encouraged those states that had not yet done so to take steps to achieve that goal. She also mentioned the normalization of relations between Peru and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. She also referred to the importance that the President of the Court had attached to ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights and to recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.

The Chair also underscored the importance of the amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court and the significance of the joint meeting of the Court and the Commission on Human Rights, aimed at harmonizing procedural and substantive aspects of both Rules of Procedure. In this context, she took up the suggestion made by some states regarding the need to monitor both Rules of Procedure and observe the results of their application over time. She also referred to the reforms allowing direct participation of the victim and avoiding duplication of procedures, especially the presentation of evidence.

The Chair spoke about the visits made by Latin American presidents to the Inter-American Court of Justice and pointed out how important they were for constructive dialogue between States Parties to the Convention and those that have recognized the jurisdiction of the Court.

- 7 -

With respect to the strengthening of the inter-American system of human rights, the Chair underscored and expressed her appreciation for the collaboration of the President of the Court with the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs in the dialogue process. She announced that a special meeting would be held to deal with this subject in the presence of the President of the Court. The meeting would discuss such aspects as the part that the political organs could play with respect to compliance with the judgments of the Court, the universal adoption of legal instruments on human rights, the possible establishment of a semi-permanent or permanent court within the inter-American system, and other proposals that might be put forward by the Court.

Reflecting a consensus among the delegations present, the Chair called upon the states, not only in the framework of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs but also in that of other pertinent bodies, to endow the Court with the resources it needs to be able to function, given the importance of human rights issues in the Hemisphere and the new demands being made on the system. She also drew attention to the close collaboration between the Committee she chairs an the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the period under review, a relationship that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs had always cherished.

Finally, at its meeting of May 8, 2001, the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs agreed to present this report to the Permanent Council together with its respective draft resolution, which is attached to this report as Appendix IV and which, pursuant to Article 91.f of the Charter, reflects the observations and recommendations it deems necessary regarding the Annual Report presented by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the General Assembly in accordance with Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

APPENDIX I

PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OEA/Ser.GORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES CP/CAJP-1770/01

16 March 2001COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS Original: Spanish

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,JUDGE ANTÔNIO A. CANÇADO TRINDADE, TO THE COMMITTEE ON

JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF THE PERMANENT COUNCILOF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

(Washington, D.C., March 9, 2001)

- 11 -

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, JUDGE ANTÔNIO A. CANÇADO TRINDADE, TO THE COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL

AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF THE PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

(Washington, D.C., March 9, 2001)

Madam Chair of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the OAS,Ambassador Margarita Escobar,

Honorable Ambassadors and Representatives of OAS member states,

It is now nearly a year since I had the honor, on Thursday, April 13, 2000, to appear, together with Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli and the Secretary, Manuel E. Ventura Robles, before this Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CJPA) of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS), which was presided over at that time by Ambassador Claude Heller, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the OAS. On that occasion, I made a detailed presentation of the 1999 Annual Report, in my capacity as President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, after which 16 delegations took the floor to express support for the Court because of the great deal of work it had done that year and to state their wish that the Organization would maintain its support for the Court.

Today, March 9, 2001, accompanied by the Vice-President and four other Judges of the Court, as well as by the Secretary and other members of the Court’s Secretariat, I have the honor to once again address the representatives of OAS member states, this time to present to this same Committee of the Permanent Council, the Annual Report of the Court for 2000. This report was sent to the OAS on February 17, 2001, and distributed to the delegations present here.

The attendance, at my current presentation to the OAS, of five of my fellow judges of the Court, who kindly arranged to come with me to Washington, D.C., is of symbolic value: in addition to demonstrating the collegial spirit that inspires our work together, it attests to the importance that our Court attributes to the role of the States Party to the American Convention on Human Rights as the guarantor, in its capacity as last instance, of our regional system of protection. The notion of collective protection, exercised jointly by all the States Party, underlies both the American Convention and all human rights treaties.

Let me now turn to a narration of the activities of the Court during 2000. The salient aspects of my Report can be summarized as follows.

I. Submission of new disputes and provisional measures

In the course of 2000, three new disputes were submitted for consideration by the Inter-American Court, namely: the cases of Constantine et al and Benjamin et al against Trinidad and Tobago and the case of Barrios Altos against Peru. In addition, two petitions were submitted for provisional protective measures: the case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the

- 12 -

Dominican Republic and the case of the Community of Paz de San José de Apartadó regarding Colombia. In addition, three resolutions on provisional protective measures were adopted, in the cases of the Constitutional Court, Ivcher Bronstein, and Loayza Tamayo, all concerning Peru.

II. Sessions

The Court held three regular sessions and one special session in 2000. In those sessions,1/ the following activities took place: 11 public hearings on provisional measures, preliminary exceptions, substance, reparations, and a request for interpretation of judgment on substance; rulings were handed down on preliminary exceptions in the cases of the Mayagna (Sumo) Acas Tingni Community against Nicaragua and Las Palmeras against Colombia; basic judgment in the cases of Durand and Ugarte and Cantoral Benavides, both against Peru, Trujillo Oroza against Bolivia, and Bámaca Velásquez against Guatemala; a ruling on interpretation of a judgment on substance in the case of Cesti Hurtado against Peru; resolutions on enforcement of judgment in the cases of El Amparo against Venezuela and Garrido and Baigorria against Argentina; resolutions on practice of proof within the state (exhumation of the bodies of two of the presumed victims) in the case Las Palmeras; resolutions on the requirement for the state to find the family members of various victims so that they can participate in the reparations phase in the cases of Villagrán Morales et al (case of the “Street Children”) against Guatemala and of the Caracazo against Venezuela; seven resolutions were issued on the provisional measures adopted in Álvarez et al and Clemente Teherán et al, both with respect to Colombia; James et al with respect to Trinidad and Tobago; Colotenango and Blake, both with respect to Guatemala; the provisional measures mentioned above were adopted in the cases of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic, in the cases of the Constitutional Court and Ivcher Bronstein with respect to Peru, and in the case of the Community of Paz de San José de Apartadó with respect to Colombia. In addition, the provisional measures ordered in the case of Cesti Hurtado with respect to Peru were lifted.

The Court currently has before it 30 disputes at different stages of proceedings, as well as 15 provisional protective measures. The Court reaffirms its commitment to dealing with this volume of work as quickly as possible, without prejudice to legal security, provided that its budget is not cut and that the increases requested for 2002 are granted–bearing in mind, of course, the limitations of its human and material resources and, especially, the fact that it is still not a permanent court. This has required increasing commitment from judges to meet more often and to assume with dedication new obligations that must be met at home (e.g., drafting judgments, more frequent communication with the Secretariat of the Court, and consultations with other Judges), all of these tasks being carried out without any monetary compensation owing to the fact that funds are not provided for these purposes.

1. XLVII (January 24 to February 4), XLVIII (August 7-18), and XLIX (November 16-25) regular sessions; and XXIV (November 12-15) special sessions.

- 13 -

III. Acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction to hear disputes

On the occasion of the thirtieth regular session of the OAS General Assembly in Windsor, Canada, a ceremony was held on Monday, June 5, 2000, at which Barbados recognized the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court to hear disputes. This act, so important for consolidation of the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights, was witnessed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Barbados, Ms. Billie A. Miller; the Secretary-General of the OAS, Mr. César Gaviria Trujillo; myself, as President of the Inter-American Court; the Vice-President, Judge Máximo Pacheco Gómez; the Secretary, Mr. Manuel E. Ventura Robles, and various Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives of the Caribbean States to the OAS.

May I recall that Peru, by a letter of July 9, 1999, submitted a document to the OAS General Secretariat in Washington, D.C., stating that it “was withdrawing the statement of recognition of the optional clause of submission to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to hear disputes.” This withdrawal, as far as it was concerned, “was to take effect immediately and be applicable to all cases in which Peru had not responded to the petition brought before the Court.” The Court examined the effect of this statement on the cases of Ivcher Bronstein and the Constitutional Court (rulings on jurisdiction, September 1999), declared inadmissible the claim of the Peruvian state that it was withdrawing with immediate effect its statement of recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, and decided to continue hearing and processing both cases.

A few weeks ago (on January 12, 2001), Peru approved Legislative Resolution 27401 with a single article, stating: “Legislative Resolution 27152 is hereby revoked, and the Executive hereby undertakes to take all necessary steps to negate any results of said Legislative Resolution, hereby re-establishing in full for the Peruvian state, the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to hear disputes.”

The Court notes with great satisfaction the recent proposal of the organs of the Peruvian state to normalize relations with the Court, in accordance with the principles that inspired ratification of the American Convention and the good-faith implementation of this instrument of international human rights protection. This expression of the state’s willingness to meet its freely contracted international obligations, which represents the return of the Peruvian state to its better legal tradition and thinking, was recently reiterated by His Excellency the Minister of Justice of Peru, Dr. Diego García-Sayán, during a visit to the headquarters of the Court on February 9, 2001. The Court feels confident that the Peruvian state will fully implement, within a reasonable time frame, all judgments handed down by the Court and pending enforcement.

Similarly, on the subject of the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, I would like to call–as I did in my last year’s Report, on those states that have not yet done so, to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights and recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court in disputes, so that our human rights protection system can be enriched with universality of composition, in the regional sphere of its operation.

I am firmly convinced–as I have stated on various occasions–that the real commitment of a country to comply with internationally recognized human rights can be measured by its initiative and determination to become a Party to human rights treaties and to assume its contracted protection obligations enshrined in such treaties. In this area of protection, the same criteria, principles, and

- 14 -

standards should be upheld by all states, which are legally equal, and should work to the benefit of all human beings, regardless of their nationality or any other circumstances.

Those states that have remained outside of the legal system of the American Convention on Human Rights have a historic debt to the inter-American system of protection, which must be redeemed. While all OAS member states have not ratified the American Convention, do not fully accept the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court to hear disputes, and do not incorporate the substantive standards of the American Convention into their internal law, very little progress will be made in the genuine strengthening of the inter-American protection system. The international protection agencies can do little if the conventional standards for safeguarding human rights do not reach the bases of national societies. Consequently, I wish today to repeat my call, which respectful but resounding and which I hope will duly touch the juridical conscience of all OAS member states.

IV. Meeting of the governing bodies of the Court and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

On November 18, 2000, a meeting was held at the headquarters of the Inter-American Court in San José, Costa Rica, with the participation of the President and Vice-President of the Court, Judges Antônio A. Cançado Trindade and Máximo Pacheco Gómez; and the President and First Vice-President of the Commission, Commissioners Hélio Bicudo and Claudio Grossman. The meeting highlighted the close, harmonious relations of coordination that inspire both human rights protection organs of the inter-American system and established the agenda for the next meeting between the Court and the Commission, scheduled for March 8, 2001, in this city of Washington D.C., in accordance with the directives of the OAS General Assembly.

At the end of the meeting of November 18, 2000, in San José, Costa Rica, the Presidents of the Court and the Commission, Judge A. A. Cançado Trindade and Mr. Hélio Bicudo, sent a joint letter to the OAS Secretary-General, Mr. César Gaviria Trujillo, informing him of the topics agreed upon for consideration by both bodies, including the following: (a) strengthening of the inter-American human rights protection system; (b) streamlining of the process of amending their Rules of Procedure–functions already carried out by both the Court and the Commission; (c) continuous coordination between the two organs of the system with a view to diligently carrying out their functions; (d) implementation of the judgments and other decisions of the Court, as well as of the recommendations of the Commission; (e) joint search for improved financing for the operation of both protection bodies. Mention was also made in the letter to the need to obtain the additional human and economic resources that the two bodies will need to improve compliance with their conventional obligations in the years to come.

As decided at the meeting of November 18, 2000, the Court and the Commission held a plenary meeting in this city of Washington, D.C., yesterday, March 8, to examine the above-mentioned topics. The two bodies held fruitful, in-depth discussions on everything pertaining to the future implementation of the new Rules of Procedure adopted by both of them and on the strengthening of the supervision of the states’ compliance with rulings of the Court and recommendations of the Commission.

- 15 -

At the end of yesterday’s meeting, the Presidents of the Court and the Commission, Judge A. A. Cançado Trindade and Mr. Claudio Grossman, sent a joint letter to the OAS Secretary-General, Mr. César Gaviria Trujillo, informing him of the above, requesting additional resources from the OAS to enable both bodies to carry out their work diligently (until those resources reach at least 10 percent of the Organization’s regular budget), and stressing the importance for all states of the region to incorporate the standards of international law on human rights into their internal law and for their Judiciaries to make greater use of international jurisprudence as regards the protection of human rights.

V. Strengthening of the inter-American human rights protection system

To give continuity to the high-level activities designed to strengthen the inter-American human rights protection system, launched in 1999 with the holding of two meetings of experts in September and November 1999 and the seminar on “The Inter-American Human Rights Protection System on the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century,” held in San José, Costa Rica, in November 1999, the Court held two meetings of experts in 2000 for the purpose of identifying criteria on the steps that must be taken to strengthen the inter-American human rights protection system.

These meetings were held at the headquarters of the Court under my coordination, in February 2000, with the participation of Judges of the Court, members of the Commission, and eminent persons in the field of international law on human rights. I am pleased to inform the Honorable Ambassadors and Representatives of member states that at the end of my presentation I will be circulating to you all, the first issues, just off the presses, of the first volume of the record (in 750 pages) of the recent seminar on “The Inter-American Human Rights Protection System on the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century,” which is proof of the Court’s assembling power and represents one of its contributions to the strengthening of the inter-American protection system.

For me, it is reason for particular satisfaction that this historic publication is being launched at the headquarters of our regional Organization and within its Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs.

Similarly, on the topic of the strengthening of the inter-American human rights protection system, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Human Rights created by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs in San José, Costa Rica, on November 22, 1999, met on February 10-11, 2000, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cult of Costa Rica, to recommend concrete steps for strengthening the inter-American human rights protection system. At that meeting, I had the honor to represent the Court, accompanied by its Secretary, Manuel E. Ventura Robles; on that occasion, I informed the Ad Hoc Working Group on the conclusions reached at the two activities organized by the Court that I have just mentioned. It should be borne in mind that the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Group were approved by the OAS General Assembly at its thirtieth regular session (held in June 2000, in Windsor, Canada); one of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Group endorsed by the General Assembly was precisely the one in favor of amending the Rules of Procedure of the Court and the Commission, which is now a reality, as I already stated, and will go toward encouraging the improvement of our protection system.

- 16 -

March 3-17, 2000, at the invitation of its then President, Ambassador Claude Heller, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the OAS, I visited this Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Permanent Council of the OAS on March 16 to report on the recent contributions of the Court on the reform and strengthening of the inter-American human rights protection system. 2/ I also seized the opportunity of that visit to meet with the various Ambassadors of Central American, South American, Caribbean, and North American countries accredited to the OAS, as well as with various senior officials of the OAS.

Later, on April 13, 2000, I once again spoke before this OAS Committee, to present the Annual Report on the work of the Court for 1999, which was received with great satisfaction. In this regard, members of the Committee expressed support for the return of at least US$100,000.00 of the US$150,500.00 cut from the Court’s budget for 2000, so that the Court could hold at least three meetings in 2000 and translate and publish its Annual Report for that year.

On that occasion, the representatives of the states expressed their desire to see the Court’s budget increased as of 2001, as the budget had been frozen since 1998. On the same occasion, I also met with the OAS Secretary-General, Mr. César Gaviria Trujillo, with his human rights adviser, Mr. Peter Quilter, with a number of Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives to the OAS, and with various representatives of cooperation agencies headquartered in Washington, D.C. and with which the Court has maintained relations.

VI. Adoption of the New Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

At its XLIX regular session, held November 16-25, 2000, the Inter-American Court, by a resolution of November 24, 2000, adopted its new Rules of Procedure, with a view to tailoring the rules governing its procedures to the needs for more efficient the protection of the human rights enshrined in the American Convention. These Rules of Procedure will enter into force on June 1, 2001. To place in context the significant changes made in these new Rules of Procedure–one-quarter of the former version–it must be borne in mind that the 2000 OAS General Assembly, held in Windsor, Canada, adopted a resolution3/ endorsing the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Human Rights, made up of Representatives of the Chanceries of countries of the region (meeting in San José, Costa Rica, in February 2000).

2. See OAS, Report of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States within the framework of the discussion on the inter-American human rights protection system (March 16, 2000), document OEA/Ser.G/CP/CAJP-1627/00 of 3/17/2000, reproduced in OAS, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2000, Annex XLIX, pp. 657-687.

3. OEA/A.G., Resolution AG/RES. 1701 (XXX-O/00), 2000.

- 17 -

The above-mentioned OAS General Assembly resolution, inter alia, called on the Inter-American Court, taking into consideration the Reports that it put forward, in representation of the Court, to the OAS organs on March 16, April 13, and June 6, 2000, 4/ to consider the possibility of: (a) “allowing the direct participation of victims” in proceedings before the Court (once the case has been submitted to its jurisdiction), “taking into account the need to preserve balance in proceedings and to redefine the role of the IHRC in such proceedings;” and (b) avoiding “duplication of procedures” (once the case has been submitted to its jurisdiction), in particular “the production of proof, taking into account the differences in the nature” of the Court and the ICHR.

The changes made by the Court in its new Rules of Procedure have indeed had an impact on the streamlining of procedures as regards probatory matters and provisional measures; but the most significant change has consisted of allowing direct participation by presumed victims, their family members, or their representatives, in all phases of the proceedings before the Court (see below). In its Rules of Procedure of 2000, the Court introduced a series of provisions, especially related to preliminary exceptions, responses to petitions, and reparations, with a view to ensuring greater speed and flexibility in the process before it. The Court bore in mind the old adage “Justice delayed is justice denied.” In addition, to achieve more expeditious proceedings without prejudice to legal security, unnecessary costs would be avoided, to the benefit of all those involved in disputes before the Court.

In this spirit, as regards preliminary exceptions, whereas the previous Rules of Procedure of 1996 required that objections be entered within two months of notification of a petition, the Rules of Procedure of 2000 indicate that such exceptions may be introduced only in written responses to petitions (Article 36). Moreover, despite the fact that in the phase of preliminary exceptions the principle is applied of reus in excipiendo fit actor, the Rules of Procedure of 2000 establish that the Court can convene a special hearing on preliminary exceptions whenever it deems this indispensable; in other words, it may, depending on the circumstances, dispense with the hearing. And although the practice of the Court has to date been to issue first a ruling on preliminary exceptions, and if these are rejected, to hand down subsequently a ruling on substance, the Rules of Procedure of 2000 authorize the Court, in light of the principle of keeping proceedings to a minimum, to hand down decisions in a single ruling on both preliminary exceptions and the substance of a case (Article 36).

In turn, whereas under the Rules of Procedure of 1996 a response had to be made to a petition within four months of the notification of the petition, under the Rules of Procedure of 2000, a response must be submitted within two months of notification of a petition (Article 37.1). This, like other reductions of time limits, allows for greater speed in proceedings, to the benefit of the parties involved. Similarly, the Rules of Procedure of 2000 establish that, in responding to a petition, the state petitioned must declare if it agrees with the facts as set forth in the complaint and with the claims of the petitioner, or if it contests them; in this way, the Court can consider as agreed, any facts not expressly denied and any claims not expressly disputed (Article 37.2).

This, like other deadlines that have been shortened, makes it possible to process cases more quickly, benefiting the parties involved. Furthermore, the 2000 Rules of Procedure stipulate that the State’s reply must indicate whether or not it accepts the facts denounced and the complainant’s

4. Reproduced in: OAS, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2000, doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/III.50-doc. 4, San José, Costa Rica, 2001, pp. 657-790.

document.doc

- 18 -

claims. Thus, the Court can consider all facts not specifically denied and all undisputed claims to be accepted (Article 37.2).

Regarding evidentiary matters, bearing in mind a recommendation from the OAS General Assembly (see above), the Court added a provision to its 2000 Rules of Procedure stating that the evidence presented to the Commission must be incorporated into the Court’s case file, provided it is for adversary proceedings unless the Court deems it essential to duplicate the evidence. With this change, the Court aims to prevent the repetition of procedural acts, with a view to streamlining the process and cutting costs. It should be borne in mind here that the alleged victims or their family members or representatives can independently contribute requests, arguments, and evidence throughout the proceedings (Article 43).

The new, fourth Rules of Procedure of the Court contain provisions allowing for the joinder of related cases by the Court, at any stage of the action, provided they share like parties, purposes, and regulatory foundations (Article 28). This too is aimed at streamlining proceedings before the Court. The 2000 Rules of Procedure also stipulate that the presentation of complaints and requests for advisory opinions must be transmitted not only to the president and other judges on the Court, but also to the OAS Permanent Council, through its Chair; complaints must also be transmitted to the State in question, the original complainant, and the alleged victim or his/her family members or duly-accredited representatives (Articles 35.2 and 62.1).

Up until now, it has been the practice of the Court to hold public hearings on provisional measures for human rights protection, when it deems necessary; however this was not provided for in the 1996 Rules of Procedure. The 2000 Rules of Procedure therefore incorporate a provision stipulating that the Court, or the president if the Court is not in session, can convene the parties to a public hearing on provisional measures, when deemed necessary (Article 25).

As for reparations, the 2000 Rules of Procedure state that complaints must include a claim for reparations and costs (Article 33.1); and the judgments issued by the Court must include, inter alia, a ruling on reparations and costs (Article 55.1.h). Here again, the Court is seeking to shorten proceedings, with a view to making them faster and less expensive, thus benefiting all the interested parties.

In keeping with the recommendation from the OAS General Assembly (see above), the Court added a series of measures to its 2000 Rules of Procedure aimed at allowing full participation (locus standi in judicio) by the alleged victims or their family members or duly-accredited representatives in all stages of the proceedings before the Court. Historically, this is the most important change to the fourth Rules of Procedure and a landmark in the evolution of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.

The 1996 Rules of Procedure took the first step in this direction, by granting alleged victims, their family members, or their representatives the ability to present their own arguments and evidence to the Court, specifically in the reparations phase (Article 23). If the victims are present at the start of the process (when their rights are allegedly infringed) and at the end (as potential beneficiaries of the reparations), why then should they not be present during the proceedings, as the actual complainants? The 2000 Rules of Procedure sought to remedy this incongruity that persisted for

- 19 -

over two decades (since the entry into force of the American Convention) in the inter-American human rights system.

In fact, with the Court’s 2000 Rules of Procedure, the alleged victims and their family members or representatives can independently present requests, arguments, and evidence throughout the proceedings (Article 23). Thus, when the Court acknowledges the complaint to the alleged victim or his/her family members or representatives, it gives them 30 days to present their requests, arguments, and evidence in writing (Article 35.4). During public hearings, they can also take the floor to present their arguments and evidence, because they are true participants in the process (Article 40.2).5/ With this major advance, it is finally clear that the true parties in a contentious case before the Court are the individual complainants and the State being denounced, while the Inter-American Commission is only involved procedurally (Article 2.23).

By granting the alleged victims and their family members or representatives locus standi in judicio in all phases of proceedings before the Court, they now enjoy all the procedural powers and obligations that, up through the 1996 Rules, were held only by the Commission and the State in question (except in the reparations phase). This implies that three different positions may exist or coexist in proceedings before the Court: that of the alleged victim (or his/her family members or representatives) as a subject of international human rights law; that of the Commission, as an auxiliary body of the Court; and that of the State denounced.

This historic amendment to the Court’s Rules of Procedure gives the proper weight to the different actors; improves the hearing of the case; ensures the principle of adversarial action, which is key in the pursuit of truth and justice under the American Convention; acknowledges that the direct opposition of the complainants and the States denounced is the essence of contentious international human rights cases; recognizes the alleged victims’ right to freedom of expression, which is essential for the equity and transparency of the process; and, last but not least, guarantees equality of arms (égalité des armes) throughout the proceedings before the Court.6/

5. Requests for interpretation will be transmitted by the secretary of the Court to the parties in the case, including naturally the alleged victims or their family members or representatives, so they can present the written arguments they deem relevant, within the deadline set by the president of the Court (Article 58.2).6. See A.A. Cançado Trindade, "El Nuevo Reglamento de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (2000): El Ser Humano como Sujeto del Derecho Internacional," Revista del Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (2001), special edition (at press). See also A.A. Cançado Trindade, "El Sistema Interamericano de Protección de los Derechos Humanos (1948-1995): Evolución, Estado Actual y Perspectivas," in Derecho Internacional y Derechos Humanos/Droit international et droits de l'homme (Commemorative book of the twenty-fourth session of the foreign program of the International Law Academy in The Hague, San José, Costa Rica, April/May 1995), The Hague/San José, IIDH/the International Law Academy in The Hague, 1996, pp. 47-95; and A.A. Cançado Trindade, "The Procedural Capacity of the Individual as Subject of International Human Rights Law: Recent Developments," in Karel Vasak Amicorum Liber - Les droits de l'homme à l'aube du XXIe siècle, Brussels, Bruylant, 1999, pp. 521-544.

- 20 -

VII. Visits by Latin American presidents to the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

On April 4, 2000, Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli and I received the president of the Federative Republic of Brazil, His Excellency Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and a high-level delegation in San José, Costa Rica. The next day, as part of that visit, we received at the seat of the Court Secretary of State for Human Rights José Gregori, accompanied by the director of the Department of Human Rights and Special Issues of the Ministry of External Relations, Ambassador Marco Antônio Diniz Brandão, and Delegate Ney Lopes, representing the Latin American Parliament.

On May 29, 2000, as President of the Court, I received at the seat of the Court the president of the Republic of Colombia, His Excellency Andrés Pastrana Arango, accompanied by a high-level delegation that included the minister of foreign relations of Colombia, Mr. Guillermo Fernández de Soto, and the ambassador of Colombia to Costa Rica, Mr. Julio Aníbal Riaño Velandia. The delegation of President Andrés Pastrana was accompanied at the ceremony at the Court by the president of the Republic of Costa Rica, His Excellency Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Echeverría, and other Costa Rican authorities.

On September 12, 2000, on behalf of the Court, I received at the seat of the Court the president of Costa Rica, His Excellency Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Echeverría; the president of the Dominican Republic, His Excellency Hipólito Mejía Domínguez; and the president-elect of the United Mexican States, His Excellency Vicente Fox Quesada, together with high-level officials from their distinguished delegations and from the host country, Costa Rica.

Recently, on December 5, 2000, I also received at the seat of the Court, the president of the Argentine Republic, His Excellency Fernando de la Rúa, accompanied by a high-level delegation that included the minister of foreign affairs of Argentina, Adalberto Rodríguez Giavarini, and the ambassador of Argentina to Costa Rica, Manuel María Pinto. President Fernando de la Rúa’s delegation was accompanied at the ceremony at the Court by the president of the Republic of Costa Rica, His Excellency Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Echeverría, and by the minister of foreign affairs and worship, Roberto Rojas López, among other officials.

These presidential visits, preceded by that of the president of Paraguay the previous year, represent a series of historic events for the Court, confirming the healthy trend toward respectful alignment and constructive dialogue between the states that created the inter-American system for the protection of human rights and the organs responsible for watching over their full observance of the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights and other hemispheric human rights instruments.

During their respective visits, the aforementioned presidents underscored the contribution of the Inter-American Court, through its jurisprudence and doctrine, to the protection of human dignity and the restitution of the rights of individuals harmed in the cases that have come before the Court. They also stated that the Court’s judgments and advisory opinions have made the countries in the region take steps to adapt their national laws to international standards for the protection of human rights. They also mentioned that the American Convention constitutes a major step forward, as a basic instrument for protecting fundamental human rights and faithfully reflecting the aspirations of the peoples in the region regarding the exercise of representative democracy and the prevalence of the rule of law.

- 21 -

The presidents further stressed the duty of the American States to strengthen the Court’s role in the Hemisphere. They also stressed that there should be universal ratification of the American Convention and recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court in order to strengthen the regional human rights system. Finally, they underscored the importance of the States Party to the American Convention integrally accepting the judgments of the Court, faithfully complying with them, and dealing with the problem of financing the regional system for the protection of human rights.

VIII. Thirtieth regular session of the OAS General Assembly (June 2000)

The OAS General Assembly held its thirtieth regular session from June 4 to 6, 2000, in Windsor, Canada. The Inter-American Court was represented by myself as its president, its vice president, Judge Máximo Pacheco Gómez, and the secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura Robles. I presented the 1999 Annual Report of the Court to the General Assembly, which it adopted through resolution AG/RES. 1716 (XXX-O/00). The delegations of nine states took the floor in the General Committee of the Assembly to support the work of the Court. On Tuesday, June 6, 2000, the General Assembly reelected by acclamation the following judges to a six-year term: Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil), Oliver Jackman (Barbados) and Alirio Abreu Burelli (Venezuela), for the period from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2006.

IX. Budget of the Court

At its twenty-seventh special session held in Washington D.C. on October 12, 2000, the OAS General Assembly adopted the 2001 budget of the Court in the amount of US$1,284,700.00 (one million, two hundred and eighty-four thousand, and seven hundred dollars). Although there was a slight increase in the Court’s budget, this amount is not sufficient to meet the growing needs of the Court. Therefore, the preliminary budget for 2002, which the Court has already presented for consideration by the competent bodies of the Organization, includes another increase that we hope the General Assembly will approve at its next session, to be held in San José, Costa Rica in early June 2001.

Although the OAS finances the Court’s budget, the Government of Costa Rica gives US$ 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand dollars) to the Court annually, as part of the commitment it made when it signed the 1983 agreement to be the seat of the Court. The Government of Costa Rica has already approved that amount in its 2001 budget.

A substantial increase has been requested in the preliminary budget of the Court for 2002 to cover the higher operating costs of the Court and its secretariat given the recent amendments to its Rules of Procedure; for example, the new Rules grant locus standi in judicio status to alleged victims in all phases of the proceedings before the Court; it is no longer just the Commission and the State that appear before the Court, but rather the petitioners too, as the true complainants. The increase was also requested because the Court feels that, given the number of cases pending before the Court–30 contentious cases as mentioned earlier, although that number could rise by the end of 2001–the

- 22 -

time has come to resolve the Court’s shortage of resources once and for all, which includes the shortage of professionals in the secretariat and their salary level.

As mentioned earlier, the judges of the Court do not receive a salary for their work, not only during the regular session, but also for their time at the seat of the Court or when they are studying files and preparing drafts in their respective home countries. The system of payment by honorarium for the work conducted at the seat of the Court is wholly inadequate, and this is the only international tribunal that still operates this way. Priority must be given to financing, to establish a semi-permanent Court, then a permanent Court with the resources needed to function properly. May I also add that with the considerable increase in the number of cases pending before the Court, never has so much been asked of a generation of judges, despite the aforementioned lack of resources.

In the next few days, we will formally request an appointment with the OAS Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs (CAAP) to explain the scope of the preliminary budget to the representatives. We are confident that the appointment will be granted, as is appropriate for the international court with the highest jurisdiction in our regional human rights system, since the work of the Inter-American Court speaks for itself, given the high professional and technical level of its judgments and other decisions.

We would appreciate it if the permanent representatives of the states present today could exercise their good offices with the delegates on the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs to see that this meeting is held in the first week of April, when I will return to Washington D.C. to present to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, as agreed with that Committee’s chair, the Court’s opinion on the reform process and strengthening of our regional human rights system, in the framework of the CAJP dialogue on the system.

X. Auditing of the Court’s financial statements

In keeping with the Court’s healthy practice, its financial statements for fiscal year 2000 are being audited by an independent external auditing firm, Venegas, Pizarro, Ugarte y Co., authorized public accountants and representatives in Costa Rica of HLB International. The audit encompasses both funds from the OAS and the contribution of the Costa Rican State for that period. A copy of the audit report will be transmitted in a timely manner to the OAS Department of Financial Services and the Inspector General of the Organization, as the Court has done over the years.

XI. Donations and international cooperation agreements

At a ceremony held on June 5, 2000, in Windsor, Canada, during the thirtieth regular session of the OAS General Assembly, the minister of external relations of Brazil, Luiz Felipe Palmeira Lampreia, gave the Court a voluntary contribution of US$50,000.00 to strengthen its institutional activities. On that occasion, I thanked the foreign minister for the contribution and stressed the importance of that donation at a time when the OAS was seeking additional resources to strengthen the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. Also present at that ceremony were Ambassador Carlos Alberto Leite Barbosa, formerly the permanent representative of Brazil to the OAS, as well as all the other members of Brazil’s delegation to the OAS General Assembly. The

- 23 -

vice president of the Court, Judge Máximo Pacheco Gómez, and its secretary, Manuel E. Ventura Robles, were also present.

On August 18, 2000, the inaugural ceremony was held for the Court’s new building, which houses the joint library of the Court and the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, the Inter-American Institute’s documentation center, and the Court’s publishing unit. The guests of the Court present that day, in addition to the judges and staff at the Court’s secretariat, included the president of the Republic of Costa Rica, His Excellency Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Echeverría; the second vice president of the Republic of Costa Rica, Mrs. Elizabeth Odio Benito; the minister of foreign affairs and worship, Mr. Roberto Rojas López; the minister of justice, Ms. Mónica Nagel; the executive director of the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, Mr. Roberto Cuéllar; and members of the Institute’s board of directors and the diplomatic corps accredited to the Government of Costa Rica.

At the ceremony, I thanked the government of the host country for its valuable support, which doubled the Inter-American Court’s wealth and established the material foundation for the future establishment of an Inter-American Court that operates on a permanent basis. Finally, a plaque was given to express the Court’s appreciation to the Republic of Costa Rica for having obtained, through international cooperation, the funds needed to purchase the building. The authorities present then toured the new library facilities–the most complete human rights library in the Hemisphere.

Regarding international cooperation agreements, in 2000 the Court signed several major agreements with renown institutions devoted to the promotion and protection of human rights: the International Institute of Human Rights (Strasbourg), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the Bancaja International Center for Peace and Development of the Caja Castellón Foundation (Spain).

The Court also followed up on the implementation of agreements signed in previous years with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Costa Rica, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Venezuela, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, the Danish Centre for Human Rights, the legal research institute of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), and the National School of the Judiciary of Brazil.

XII. Relations with other international human rights organizations

In 2000, the Court remained in constant contact and cooperation with different human rights organizations. Its activities included meetings with the president, judges, and staff of the European Court of Human Rights, held in July and October of that year in Strasbourg. The next meeting of judges from the two international human rights courts will be held in San José, Costa Rica in June 2001.

Joint education and training activities were conducted at the seat of the Court with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Furthermore, the seat of the Court also

- 24 -

received a visit from a delegation from Sweden’s Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.

XIII. Conclusions

I would like to conclude my presentation of the 2000 Annual Report of the Court with a positive message for the representatives of the States present here today from myself and my colleagues at the Court. Let me express again, as I did at the outset, the confidence that the Inter-American Court has in the States Party to the American Convention as guarantors of the Convention. This year saw some notable events, including:

First, the increase in the number of States that have accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, with the recent recognition by the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Brazil, and Barbados;

Second, the positive contribution to the inter-American human rights system in recent years of several States that have fully or partially submitted to the respective complaints, by accepting the facts and their international responsibility. The following were encouraging: Suriname (Aloeboetoe case), Venezuela (El Amparo and el Caracazo cases), Argentina (Maqueda and Garrido y Baigorria cases), Ecuador (Benavides Cevallos case), Bolivia (Trujillo Oroza case), Guatemala (Blake case), and just a few days ago Peru (Barrios Altos case). In addition, there is a spirit of cooperation and adherence to procedure by the States called before the Court – an unequivocal sign of their confidence in the work of the Court;

Third, the recent events in Peru and recent decisions taken by the current government promising to overcome past events that distanced the Peruvian State from the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, thereby strengthening the Court, at a time when the ideal of justice administration at the international level is gaining momentum;

Fourth, the unfettered support that the host country, Costa Rica, has given the Court for over 20 years now, including financial support; in addition the Court has recently received donations from Mexico and Brazil to update its official publications, since the OAS budget has not provided funds for publishing and disseminating the Court’s jurisprudence for many years now;

Fifth, the recent historic visits to the seat of the Court of the presidents of the Argentine Republic, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, and the Dominican Republic, promoting constructive dialogue at the highest level between the States Party to the Convention and the Inter-American Court;

Sixth, the Court is able to bring players together to strengthen the inter-American human rights system, as seen with the participation of several of the world’s most distinguished jurists and human rights experts in the seminar and four meetings of experts organized by the Court and the release today in the OAS of the first volume of

- 25 -

records from the aforementioned seminar on “The Inter-American System and the Protection of Human Rights at the Threshold of the 21st Century”; and

Seventh, the adoption of the new Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, which are aimed at achieving full participation by the alleged victims in all phases of contentious proceedings before the Inter-American Court, as petitioners and subjects of international law with full international legal capacity.

The Court reiterates its firm support for the work of the OAS Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, chaired by Ambassador Margarita Escobar of El Salvador, in its initiative to follow up on the dialogue on the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. On Thursday, April 5, 2000, I will have the honor and privilege to return to address the representatives of the OAS member states to present the opinion and recommendations of the Court on strengthening the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.

We have promoted initiatives to strengthen the international protection of human rights in our corner of the world, aware that institutions that do not evolve with the times become stagnant. There is a pressing need for additional human and material resources that are essential for fully realizing what often seems to be but a utopia in our Hemisphere. Given the harsh realities of the modern world, we cannot live without utopias; we need to seek refugee in them if we truly wish to find a way to build a better world for future generations. I trust that together we can continue to move forward, promoting the irreversible evolution of the international protection of human rights in our region, so that tomorrow’s reality can truly reflect what today is but a utopia. In short, we must meet the challenges of the day to address the new scope of the needs for protecting human beings at the dawn of the 21st century.

Madam Chair, ambassadors, permanent representatives, on behalf of myself and judges Máximo Pacheco Gómez, Hernán Salgado Pesantes, Alirio Abreu Burelli, Sergio García Ramírez, and Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo, as well as the Secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura Robles; and the Assistant Secretary, Renzo Pomi; who are here with me today, and Judge Oliver Jackman, who was not able to come to Washington D.C. I thank you for your attention today for my presentation of the 2000 Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights–the first presentation of the Court’s work in the 21st century. Thank you very much.

Washington, D.C.March 9, 2001

document.docdocument.doc

- 27 -

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATESWASHINGTON, D.C. 2 0 0 0 6 U.S.A.

March 8, 2001

Excellency:

We have the honor to address Your Excellency on behalf of the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to let you know that today these two supervisory bodies of the American Convention on Human Rights conducted their annual joint meeting pursuant to the mandate of the General Assembly of the OAS.

The purpose of the meeting was to analyze the following matters of common concern:

1. Implementation of the amendments to the Rules of Procedure recently adopted by both supervisory bodies;

2. Compliance with judgments of the Court and recommendations of the Commission;

3. Strengthening of the inter-American system for protection of human rights;

4. Ongoing coordination between the two organs of the Convention to ensure the faithful fulfillment of their functions; and

5. Joint quest for improved funding of the operations of both supervisory bodies.

Dr. César GaviriaSecretary General of the Organization

of American StatesWashington, D.C.United States of America

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISIÓN INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSÃO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMISSION INTERAMÉRICAINE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME

APPENDIX II

- 28 -

Through this letter we should like to express the feeling shared by all members of the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court that today’s joint meeting was extremely valuable. The members of both organs of the Convention had a fruitful exchange of ideas in an atmosphere of fraternity and high legal standards.

Both supervisory bodies stressed that it was important for states and civil society organizations, petitioners and beneficiaries of the protection system in general to study the new Rules of Procedure of the Court and the Commission in depth, in order to make better use of the procedures governed by them and achieve ever more effective safeguards for human rights.

We also agreed on the importance of the political organs of the OAS developing mechanisms to guarantee supervision of full compliance by member states of the Organization with the judgments and decisions of the Court and the recommendations and resolutions of the Commission.

We also take a very positive view of the fact that member states of the OAS continue to incorporate norms of international human rights law in their domestic legal systems and that the Judiciaries in countries of the region are making more extensive use of international jurisprudence in applying the human rights treaties they are bound by.

Finally, the two organs of the Convention support the need to increase, gradually and substantially, the funds that the Organization assigns to the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, so that they represent, as soon as possible, at least 10 percent of the regular budget of the OAS.

We would be grateful if you could kindly forward a copy of this note to the delegations of the states making up the Permanent Council of the OAS.

We should like to avail ourselves of this opportunity to convey to Your Excellency assurances of our highest consideration and to thank you for your constant support of the work of the Inter-American Commission and Court in protecting human rights in the Americas.

Claudio Grossman Antonio A. Cançado TrindadePresident President

Inter-American Commission Inter-American Court on Human Rights of Human Rights

- 29 -

APPENDIX III

PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OEA/Ser.GORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES CP/CAJP-1783/01

6 April 2001COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS Original: Spanish

NOTE FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURTOF HUMAN RIGHTS REGARDING ITS PROPOSED BUDGET

- 31 -

April 5, 2001

Excellency

I have the honor to address Your Excellency, on instructions from the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judge Antonio A. Cançado Trindade, to transmit to you, as promised during this morning’s meeting of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, a copy of the proposed budget the Court needs to gradually make its operations semi-permanent and later permanent.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

(s)Manuel Ventura RoblesSecretary of the Court

Her ExcellencyMargarita EscobarAmbassador, Permanent Representative of El Salvador

to the Organization of American StatesWashington, D.C. 20036

CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOUR INTERAMERICAINE DES DROITS DE L’HOMMECÔRTE INTERAMERICANA DE DEREITOS HUMANOS

INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

- 33 -

ITEMS ANNUAL AMOUNTHuman resources: judges, lawyers, assistants, and administrative staff 3,103,159.07Sessions, first quarter 472,150.00Sessions, second quarter 475,150.00Sessions, third quarter 472,150.00Sessions, fourth quarter 472,150.00Participation in the OAS General Assembly 14,200.00Meeting in Washington: CAJP, CAAP, OAS missions and departmentsMeeting in Washington with the Inter-American Commission on Human RightsJuridical Committee course in Rio de Janeiro 4,930.00Secretariat operations 1,047,355.50

6,119,530.57

document.doc

- 35 -

APPENDIX IV

DRAFT RESOLUTION

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ANNUAL REPORTOF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

HAVING SEEN the observations and recommendations of the Permanent Council on the

annual report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (CP/doc- /01) and the presentation of

that report by the President of the Court, Judge Antonio A. Cançado Trindade (CP/CAJP-1770/01); and

CONSIDERING:

That at the Third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, in April 2001, the Heads of State

and Government decided to continue fostering measures to strengthen and enhance the inter-American

system of human rights, in particular an adequate increase in resources allocated to the Inter-American

Court of Human Rights;

That Article 54.f of the Charter of the Organization of American States establishes that it is a

function of the General Assembly to consider the observations and recommendations presented by the

Permanent Council on the reports of the organs, agencies, and entities of the Organization in

accordance with Article 91.f of the Charter;

That Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes that “To each

regular session of the General Assembly…the Court shall submit, for the Assembly’s consideration, a

- 36 -

report on its work during the previous year. It shall specify, in particular, the cases in which a state has

not complied with its judgments, making any pertinent recommendations”; and

That the Inter-American Court of Human Rights presented its annual report to the Permanent

Council, which, following a frank, constructive exchange, has forwarded observations and

recommendations thereon to the General Assembly,

RESOLVES:

1. To receive and transmit to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights the observations

and recommendations of the OAS Permanent Council on the annual report.

2. To acknowledge with satisfaction that on January 31, 2001, the Government of Peru

deposited with the OAS General Secretariat an instrument by which it reaffirmed that the recognition

of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued by Peru on October

20, 1980, was fully in effect and binding in all senses on the Peruvian state, and that the effectiveness

of that declaration of recognition should be understood to have been uninterrupted since its deposit

with the OAS General Secretariat on January 21, 1981.

3. To note with satisfaction that, during the period covered by this report, the Government

of Barbados recognized the binding jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, under

the terms set forth in Article 62.1 of the Convention.

- 37 -

4. To reiterate that the judgments of the Court are final and may not be appealed and that

the States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the rulings of the Court in all cases to

which they are party.

5. To urge those member states of the OAS that have not yet done so to accord [the highest

political priority to] consideration of the signature or ratification of, or accession to, [as soon as

possible], and as the case may be, to the American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San José,

Costa Rica,” and to consider recognizing the binding jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of

Human Rights.

6. To instruct the Permanent Council to promote in the coming fiscal periods an

adequate increase in the resources allocated to the Court, given that the promotion and protection of

human rights is a fundamental priority of the Organization.

7. To thank the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for its work during the period

covered by this report and, in particular, for amending its Rules of Procedure, in keeping with the

provisions of resolution AG/RES. 1701 (XXX-O/00).

document.doc

document.doc